On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false analogy,
we are not at war with animals.

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

No, angie girl.



What is it if it's not human behaviour?


The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.


All part of human behaviour.

Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too.

Why is it not part of human behaviour?


The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands,
unanswered. You *can't* answer it.



Not at all for the reasons given.



Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.
Lets have some specifics in detail.
A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.


Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.

Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating,
daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought"
to hold.

Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it
follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless
reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong.



No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single
speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if
you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow
all your own using methods that did not systematically
slaughter animals.

But I don't oppose farming.



But no - you choose, because you're
a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience,
to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the
while blabbering away sanctimoniously and
hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of
animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights.



See above.

So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.

But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl.



No.


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?


Read what you wrote.

Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl.

He didn't contradict himself.



You're as daft as he is.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.

Very much analogous.

Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim
is empty; it's bullshit.

Why?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)